Slashdot Mirror
Have Questions For MIT's Aaron Swartz Review?
theodp writes "Explaining that it believes 'the most important questions are the ones that will come from the MIT community,' MIT announced that it won't be accepting questions from outsiders for its President-ordered 'review' of the events that preceded the suicide of Aaron Swartz. But if you feel the 25 questions asked thus far don't cover all the bases, how about posting additional ones in the comments where MIT'ers can see them and perhaps repost to the MIT site some that they feel deserve answers? Do it soon — MIT President Rafael Reif will be returning any day now from Davos, where he sat on a panel with Bill Gates, who coincidentally once found himself in hot water over unauthorized computer access. 'They weren't sure how mad they should be about it,' Gates explained in a 2010 interview, 'because we hadn't really caused any damage, but it wasn't a good thing. Computer hacking was literally just being invented at the time, and so fortunately we got off with a bit of a warning.'"
Related: text has been published of public domain advocate Carl Malamud's remarks at Swartz's memorial. Quoting: "Aaron wasn't a lone wolf, he was part of an army, and I had the honor of serving with him for a decade. Aaron was part of an army of citizens that believes democracy only works when the citizenry are informed, when we know about our rights—and our obligations."
Why should we feel sorry for a criminal who chose to commit suicide rather than accept a a six month plea bargain for breaking and entering and accessing systems he shouldn't be accessing?
Oh, and please mod me down. I am seriously trolling here, and it couldn't possibly be a legitimate question. I mean our heroes are allowed to do whatever they want without consequence, right?
Now cars are faster and there's a lot more traffic, and a lot more to lose. So DUI's and reckless driving are big deals now.
In the early pre-internet 80s, accessing computer systems wasn't such a big deal because most had nothing worthwhile on them. Now it is.
Why is this a hard concept to understand?
What steps has MIT taken to assure that publically funded research is published to the taxpaying public?
When someone walks in off the street, enters a wiring closet, and plugs a computer into your network you call the cops. What is so hard to understand about that? Swartz wasn't a student, faculty, or a guest of MIT.
When someone repeatedly tries to get around the blocks you erect specifically for them and keeps screwing with your systems, you don't just suck it up and waste your time and money by continuing to play "whack a mole," you call the cops.
That's why we have laws on the books for dealing with people who pull stunts like Swartz. The penalties range from probation to years in jail to handle the spectrum of severity. Swartz's crime wasn't that severe and he had no record so he was facing the small end of potential sentence.
There was no issue with prosecuting the guy until victims found out that it was going to cause a lot of bad publicity. That's what this is all about. A bunch of folks with bully pulpits really liked the guy and are upset that he killed himself so they are looking for someone to blame.
Theres nobody to blame but Swartz. He is the one that pulled the stunt. He is the one that was very sick. Blaming the prosecutors, JSTOR, or MIT for Swartz's death is simply revolting.
Common sense! Where the fuck is it?!?
If MIT said they aren't interested from outsiders, then why are you still trying to barge in on their process?
It's like crashing a party you were not invited too. It's an MIT issue that and they should be ones who determines who is and isn't welcome in their review.
Slashdot, butt out.
Yes/No
What dividend should taxpayers expect when publically-funded funded MIT research is handed to private multinational companies?
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda is a 29-year old white male with a stocky build and a goatee. He responded to my ad to be interviewed for this article wearing only leather pants, leather boots and a leather vest. I could see that both of his nipples were pierced with large-gauge silver rings.
Questioner: I hope you won't be offended if I ask you to prove to me that you're a nullo. Just so that my readers will know that this isn't a fake.
CmdrTaco: Sure, no problem. (stands and unbuckles pants and drops them to his ankles, revealing a smooth, shaven crotch with only a thin scar to show where his genitals once were).
Q: Thank you. That's a remarkable sight.
(laughs and pulls pants back up). Most people think so.
Q: What made you decide to become a nullo?
(pauses). Well, it really wasn't entirely my decision.
Q: Excuse me?
The idea wasn't mine. It was my lover's idea.
Q: Please explain what you mean.
Okay, it's a long story. You have to understand my relationship with Hemos before you'll know what happened.
Q: We have plenty of time. Please go on.
Both of us were into the leather lifestyle when we met through a personal ad. Hemos's ad was very specific: he was looking for someone to completely dominate and modify to his pleasure. In other word, a slave.
The ad intrigued me. I had been in a number of B&D scenes and also some S&M, but I found them unsatisfying because they were all temporary. After the fun was over, everybody went on with life as usual.
I was looking for a complete life change. I wanted to meet someone who would be part of my life forever. Someone who would control me and change me at his whim.
Q: In other words, you're a true masochist.
Oh yes, no doubt about that. I've always been totally passive in my sexual relationships.
Anyway, we met and there was instant chemistry. Hemos is about my age and is a complete loser. Our personalities meshed totally. He's very dominant.
I went back to his place after drinks and had the best sex of my life. That's when I knew I was going to be with Hemos for a long, long time.
Q: What sort of things did you two do?
It was very heavy right away. He restrained me and whipped me for quite awhile. He put clamps on my nipples and a ball gag in my mouth. And he hung a ball bag on my sack with some very heavy weights. That bag really bounced around when Hemos fucked me from behind.
Q: Ouch.
(laughs) Yeah, no kidding. At first I didn't think I could take the pain, but Hemos worked me through it and after awhile I was flying. I was sorry when it was over.
Hemos enjoyed it as much as I did. Afterwards he talked about what kind of a commitment I'd have to make if I wanted to stay with him.
Q: What did he say exactly?
Well, besides agreeing to be his slave in every way, I'd have to be ready to be modified. To have my body modified.
Q: Did he explain what he meant by that?
Not specifically, but I got the general idea. I guessed that something like castration might be part of it.
Q: How did that make you feel?
(laughs) I think it would make any guy a little hesitant.
Q: But it didn't stop you from agreeing to Hemos's terms?
No it didn't. I was totally hooked on this man. I knew that I was willing to pay any price to be with him.
Anyway, a few days later I moved in with Hemos. He gave me the rules right away: I'd have to be naked at all times while we were indoors, except for a leather dog collar that I could never take off. I had to keep my balls shaved. And I had to wear a butt plug except when I needed to take a shit or when we were having sex.
I had to sleep on the floor next to his bed. I ate all my food on the floor, too.
The next day he took me to a piercing parlor where he had my nipples done, and a Prince Albert put into the head of my cock.
Q: Heavy stuff.
Yeah, and it got heavier. He used me as a toilet, pissing in my mouth. I had to lick his asshole clean after he t
JSTOR would not exist were it not for tax-funded public research. Neither would many of the other for-profit journals. Public (FBI...) resources are already used to defend the intellectual property of large private corporations. Should MIT also play the role of a tax-funded security force for private corporations? If so, does MIT also spend equivalent resources to protect the intellectual property of students and staff? How does MIT track public money used to support private ventures?
All access to computers is automated. I push a button or move a mouse it becomes that is interperted by the device interface which becomes a coded interaction moveing through layers of interface code to an application. The application then does something with the input given it. It is all automated. What happens depends on all the layers.
Browsers fetch all the data refered to on a "page" this can result in data fetches from 100's of places. I doubt any modern page is composed of data from a single fetch.
The "page" displayed by a browser is composed of data from many sources. Your browser does this automatically following a ruleset built into it. How is this structurally different from a automated fetcher which follows its own rule set and gets data from many sources? The difference is not the automation of multiple fetches, it is not the interaction with the human, the only different is the ruleset used to do the collecting of data.
My question is how do they describe how one automated rule set, say that used by a browser, is legal, while another ruleset, say that used by a sweeper is illegal? Both are fully automated fetch processes. They just have different rule-sets.
Why is it that you get to review yourself?
Shouldn't an external independent body be doing the reviewing (investigating)?
Isn't there a clear and obvious conflict of interest in you reviewing yourself?
McDonalds, Starbucks, the local GasNSip and Grandma all have their Wifi secured with a minimum of WPA/WPA2, often with some kind of MAC filtering, encrypted traffic and IP address management. Why did MIT, one of the most prestigious technology campuses in the world, lack even some of the simplest internet security models? Is MIT unable to find qualified technical staff as McDonalds and Starbucks have? Is it not likely that MIT's students could sue for damage to their computers caused by internal and external abuse of such a tin-can and string network infrastructure?
Have any government funding/grants been tied (spoken or implied) to MITs continued charges agains Aaron Swartz?
Fuck you doctors and FBI, niggers. Making a PC operating system. Is Linux illegal? Why is making a PC operating system being slandered by you fucks! My first job was at Ticketmaster making a VAX operating system. This is my profession!
<> I'd say it takes more bravery than you imagine to commit suicide (especially when not in an emotional state -- and he chose the day, so it was more likely a conscious decision). You have to overcome all of your survival instincts to do it. So I would not call it the coward's way out. It is more like taking the suffering up front instead of deferring the suffering over a lifetime. A coward would simply go along with it and rot in jail and come out a bitter old man.
This is some seriously sick and twisted thinking.
Perhaps you should seek some help because you have obviously been trying to rationalize taking one's own life.
How about this:
The "wiring closet" where Aaron's laptop was connected to the switch, was also used by a homeless man to store his property.
If MIT knowingly permitted the homeless man to use the closet, why would MIT or the DOJ prosecute/persecute Aaron for similarly storing his laptop there?
If Aaron reasonably concluded that the use of the wiring closet was NOT off-limits, how did this not factor into the decision(s) by all parties involved in indicting Aaron? Did MIT not participate in review of the prosecution, or were the MIT or DOJ representatives unaware of the (unlocked and occupied) closet factor?
If the closet was unlocked, and used by non-MIT individuals with MITs knowledge and permission, how does connecting a laptop to a switch IN THE SAME CLOSET rise to the level of "unauthorized"?
If I am somewhere that I am allowed to be, and there is a network port or network switch in front of me, it is reasonable to conclude that connecting a laptop to that port or switch is permitted.
Any "authorized" or "unauthorized" would, at that point, be strictly a logical, rather than physical, issue - exactly the same as accessing a server over wifi.
And, given that the wifi usage was open, and wired connections did not require authentication, again, how did that rise to "unauthorized"?
Whose decision was it, and how was that decision validated?
Did the person making that decision do so in a manner that exceeded his/her authority, or in a manner inconsistent with PUBLISHED policies?
A published policy may hold more legal weight, than the interpretation of an individual if the two are in any manner inconsistent.
Oh dear God, are you serious? Suicide is bravery? I will echo the AC's sentiment when I say that you and the mod who voted you up should seek professional help.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Question: If Swartz was the kind of character who would be likely to commit suicide if he got investigated for pushing the boundaries, then why was he pushing the boundaries? Why does Slashdot have this stream of stories implying that it was MIT's fault?
Internal hacks at MIT are a tradition. Good ones are celebrated. When an outsider physically entered a building and wiretapped a network to bypass a fire wall that was seen as an attack on property. In this case it got way overblown into a federal case. but there was still a crime here.
Oh dear God, are you serious? Suicide is bravery?
Clinging to a life with zero quality, no matter the cost is bravery?
Are you serious?
Protip: It isn't. Terror is not the prime motivator for bravery.
And before anyone starts with the, "selfish!" bullshit: Who's really selfish? The person who chooses the time, place and circumstances of their demise, or the whining bitches who are only concerned with how they themselves feel?
Oh christ, when I'm looking to kill myself, please don't come to my aid.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
No, but sacrifice is.
If the term "bravery" gets your panties in a bunch, let's put it this way: it takes a lot more guts to kill yourself than it does to surrender to authority. If you have trouble accepting this, you're probably lacking in the imagination department.
Clinging to a life with zero quality? Aren't you being a bit dramatic about Aaron? Seriously? Or are you mistaking my argument for saying that suicide is NEVER good? If so, you need to learn about context.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
-For future reference: How many document downloads per minute are permitted before MIT refers it's own students to the DoJ for criminal prosecution.
-During MITs co-operation with the DoJ and/or other government departments, were you encouraged to pursue this case further than you had initially intended? If so, What were the reasons given to pursue this particular case so vigorously
-Did the mindset of "making an example" of Aaron come into play at any stage during MITs deliberations in this instance. If so, please carefully explain this thought process, and what was hoped to have been achieved by it.
What steps has MIT taken to to ensure that the something like this will never happen again?
And, in case there is any confusion, I am not referring to steps to protect data, but instead to keep a student from being persecuted by federal authorities with the full support of the university.
While I perfectly know what Aaron has done for me (and I thank him for that!)... what have *you* done for me? Who are you, anyway?
I personally cannot survive without fresh air, natural surroundings and visiting mountains now and again. I feel a constant and increasing discomfort the longer I am away from that. If I was faced with 30 years away, then I'd be looking at 30 years of totally unbearable, 24-hours-a-day torture. There are more options for suicide before getting into the system ... The logic is undeniable. And if you've already made that decision, then you might as well make a statement with it and choose a symbolic day. That is how I personally can relate to Aaron's actions, although of course I have absolutely no idea what was actually going on in his head. (The other option of course is to compromise your morals and grovel and accept plea bargains and all the rest, but I don't think Aaron was up for that.)
And it takes more to fight. Killing yourself because the fight is hard and are sure you are going to loose is not an act of bravery. It is an act of spite or cowardice.
Civil disobedience often involves going to jail. If you cannot deal with the persecution involved with challenging authority, don't do it. Our actions have consequences. Some are just, some not. If you want to challenge injustice, you have to be willing to put yourself through it first.
He was originally faced with 6 months. The 30 years was not a realistic sentence.
If he couldn't handle being incarcerated, then perhaps he should have complied with the first request to stop accessing the network.
He is no hero. Sorry.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
How can you sleep at night, Pontius?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Would you be supporting the DoJ to prosecute students who unlock their phones without carrier consent starting tomorrow?
14 days prison sentence and a felony on their record for the plea bargain. Sounds about fair right?
JSTOR suffered damages too and are not located in the same state as MIT. That's why it is a federal case.
He still was far more of a hero than you are (and than I am, for that). Have a problem with that?
As I said, some people just don't have the imagination. It takes a strong imagination to truly understand this. You are simply parroting what "civil society" has taught you: that people who take their own lives are as despicable as those who take others' lives. Try to forget about that for a second.
By definition, we are talking about the one act that takes more guts than any other act in the entire world. The reason it takes more guts is that we are human, and we are programmed to fight at all costs for the exact opposite (life). To overcome that instinct takes a force greater than (drum roll please) you can imagine.
I think your problem is that you relate the word "bravery" to "deserving of respect" (as "civil society" has taught you), and you feel insulted that somebody used such a sacred term to describe something you personally despise. Get over it.
My father blew his brains out, I think he took the cowards way out. Only non-victim in a suicide is the person who does it in my opinion...
It was your actions that lead trammeled his spirit and lead to his death.
<<Faced with adversity, he took the coward's way out.>> A coward would simply go along with it and rot in jail and come out a bitter old man.
It seems to me Aaron is one of those very few who are very brilliant and has point of view not many of us are aware of. I've not followed this case in detail, it seems the prosecutor was out for blood and Aaron faced with onslaught of DOJ on a grand scale (can be extremely scary for a young person), and having nobody to go to for advice (who can you do refer to when you are the smartest person). Was he bipolar or on the edge? Many bipolars are phenomenally brilliant but can't cope in a world of idiots.
This Aaron Swartz case is an example of this "War on Piracy" jihad getting way too extreme. A recent article (NPR or PBS) about no high level bankers went to jail over financial debacle. Too big to prosecute so they go after small fry.
mfwright@batnet.com
Six months was a plea bargain offer, it was not what he was facing. You may brush that aside, but that's the whole nature of the complaint against the prosecution: they were trying to force him to take the six months without a trial by threatening him with so much more.
Internal MIT hacks are childish bullshit.
He faced 6 months if he accepted the plea bargain, effectively admitting that his moral position was wrong, admitting that he was nothing more than a common cracker and thief, accepting that the people in authority must always be respected even if they are obviously wrong and dangerously blind to reality. I can see why he might be unable to do that. That leaves the 30+-year alternative. Probably he didn't anticipate having that thrown at him. He was engaging in a form of protest. According to your logic, any street protester should be ready for 2 years of daily waterboarding from the FBI. The punishment was completely out of proportion to the offence. His suicide doesn't make him a hero. His actions while alive do to some extent, though.
I have argued before that this is only one kind of civil disobedience. The context of MLK's quote and actions is important: he is laying out a strategy and criticizing the actions of his opponents.
He's not kidding about anarchy. The torture and lynchings carried out by rabid segregationists were truly barbaric. The Civil Rights movement depended on the defense of law. While protesters fought local and state laws, they appealed to friendly rulings from the Supreme Court. Their aim was to draw in the federal government to affirm the existing legal rights of blacks. The quote you have chosen, and indeed the letter as a whole, is an effort to walk a delicate line, defending the right to civil disobedience while reaffirming respect for the laws that the movement depended on for success.
You can't simply take this quote out of context and treat it as a universal claim about all law-breaking. In the same letter he gives the example of the Boston Tea Party: but the people who participated in that event disguised themselves to avoid being caught. Then there's this:
The freedom fighters in Hungary in 1956 actually fought. People died. Nor do I think for a moment that MLK would say all resistance to Nazi laws must be open, loving and done with a willingness to accept the consequences. More relevant to Civil Rights, of course, was the previous history of slavery. No-one on the Underground Railroad broke the law openly. When escaping slaves got cold feet, Harriet Tubman would force them to continue at gunpoint lest they reveal the identities of others. Not only was such lawbreaking justified: I would suggest that inaction in the face of such great injustice was wrong.
The matter of civil disobedience cannot be resolved without considering context. Is the tactic effective? Is it likely to produce bad outcomes (e.g. anarchy)? Is the law just in its intent, its consequences, and its application? Is it politically legitimate? Are there better alternatives for opposing it? MLK chose what he believed was the most lawful way to achieve a just end. Looking at the state of copyright law and politics in the U.S. and internationally (Swartz's manifesto explicitly discusses access to knowledge and the developing world) and the outcomes (his actions were hardly likely to provoke anarchy), I think Swartz may have done likewise.
I have written more previously, which I won't repeat here.
I tend to agree. It takes bravery to stare into the void and then decide to throw yourself into it, but that opinion seems to 'offend' these people (yeah whatever).
Let's be honest; 'Blah blah bullshit coward's way out blah blah Martin Luther King said Words blah blah total coward blah blah blah what a pansy he probably loved cocks up his bum as well...' is just a thinly veiled way of crowing over someone's suicide. So I'm confident that these posters dislike him because of his association with this or that, and just wish to crow over the fact he was driven to suicide.
For me, the main thing I want MIT to do is to take a clear institutional position on the following points:
1. Do they believe that Aaron Swartz was indeed guilty of the felony counts he was charged with?
This question is important because it deals with the plea bargain. Swartz should only have taken the plea bargain if he was indeed guilty, legally. If not, the correct thing to do was stand trial and contest the case in court. The prosecutor, and her husband, tout the plea bargain as though that dispenses of the 35-50 year prison sentence, but if the charges were "trumped up" then it would be morally wrong to expect someone to accept a plea bargain to dispense with them.
In this case, "We don't know" is the same position as "No," because only if they believed he was definitely guilty, should he have taken the plea bargain. Plea bargains are only for guilty people, not innocent or possibly innocent ones.
I don't expect MIT to give a clear answer to this, but I can dream.
(This also doesn't determine whether Swartz should indeed have taken the plea bargain. That depends on whether he, himself, thought he was legally guilty or not, and we can't ask him about that. )
2. The next question goes beyond the legal dimension and to the moral dimension:
Does MIT, as an institution, believe that Swartz's crimes morally merited 35-50 years in a Federal Prison?
This has nothing to do with the letter of the law as written. MIT can take the position that these are good laws well applied and that if Swartz were found guilty a lengthy prison sentence was indeed appropriate. Or they can take the position that these were bad laws or that they were badly applied. In other words, they can take the position that he was morally in the right, but legally he was in trouble.
It also has nothing to do with what he would likely actually have gotten if he had been found guilty. Presumably the judge would have given a lighter sentence, but I believe the judge could have given him the entire 35-50 years. It was a possible outcome of a trial, therefore that's the baseline. The reason why I put "35-50" is because I've heard those numbers from different sources, some give a max of 35 and some give a max of 50. If MIT likes they can even say, "We believe Swartz deserved 35 years in prison but that 50 would be too much," as ridiculous as I consider that position to be.
Oh, and I encourage them to explain what punishment Swartz morally deserved for what he did, what kind of prison time, community service, fines or probation they think would be just. Obviously, they had the chance, before Swartz solved the problem with his belt, to take a position as the case was ongoing. I'd like them to take a clear and unambiguous position, now.
This is important. MIT is revered as having a "freewheeling" culture. This culture has enabled it to attract top talent from all over. People considering it as a school have the right to know it's moral position on the use of laws to prosecute "hacking" like what Aaron was doing.
Oh, I've quoted Aaron's family in my signature. MIT probably thinks that quote is unfair. Answering these questions would help to determine that.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
I'm as much of an information-wants-to-be-free type as anyone but why is this guy Captain Internet all of a sudden?
Half of gawker media is all atwitter whoring as much pageviews as they can by propping up an, admittedly, fairly bright but utterly un-wise- young tech.
Even Xeni Jardin at boingboing took a break from her weekly I-have-survived-cancer attention-whoring to prevent doctorow from getting all those juicy pageviews.
This cult of personality bullshit is getting on my nerves. People are starving in the world. An emo tech-head in a first-world nation killing himself because of depression is not news at this scale.
The MIT name has a lot of 'brand', in industry, in academia, and even with some Congress People. If MIT could help start a movement to amend the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to make it less draconian and Stalinistic, would it do it?
> Why should we feel sorry for a criminal who chose to commit suicide rather than accept a a six month plea bargain for breaking and entering and accessing systems he shouldn't be accessing? Oh, and please mod me down. I am seriously trolling here, and it couldn't possibly be a legitimate question. I mean our heroes are allowed to do whatever they want without consequence, right?
Please please please I hope you are jailed for mail fraud for misspelling your name somewhere, and get so badly buggered in prison you have to wear a daiper for the rest of your life. What goes around, comes around baby and it's clear in real life you're an asshole.
There is much rubberiness in what exactly a "criminal" act. There are generally two types of breaches of law; civil (a private matter between two parties) and criminal ("an act so horrendous it is a crime against society"). Criminal acts used to be covered by Common Law overseen by judges who kept the whole thing 'just'. But governments took this over and now 'criminal' is whatever the government decides to write in statute as being criminal. Statutes always trump Common Law, which really ties the judges' hands. Enter lobbyists. They lobby to have anything that violates their client's business model declared criminal by statute.
Were Aaron's actions an act so horrendous what he did was a 'crime against society'? I think not. Just because some dorkenmeiner government official wrote it into a criminal statute so they could lock up people doing it doesn't mean it genuinely was 'an act against society'. The 'Terms of Service' violation under the Computer Fraud act is laughable. I would love to know how the hell that go in there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
Governments workers have incredible power over the citizenry, and they have rewritten laws to make them so ridiculously broad so they can get anyone for anything. You would be amazed what you can be imprisoned for. Here's an example where a guy was imprisoned for not properly supervising one of his employees. No one was hurt, but federal employees went after him. We're not talking about the FBI here, but federal agency employees love to flash their badges and throw their weight around. It's good to be the king. The poor sap probably can't believe that he ended up doing hard time. So those readers beating their chest about Aaron that he 'did the crime - do the time' really should know what they are signing up for: http://books.google.com/books?id=Tu5RB6YHf10C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=51Ya4U8XFt&dq=lynch+in+the+name+of+justice (Go to page 43 of this Google Books preview). http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120803gw.html
His girlfriend said he had spent all his money on lawyers too. Probably his families as well. Dale Carson says this is what they never show on TV Law shows: Just how much the charade costs. http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377
How about they bring back 'Law and Order' with a few twists to make it more honest?
1. They add a 'Final Act' to each show where the accused - innocent or not - goes out and files for bankruptcy.
2. They have a running dollar total in the corner of the screen.
3. They replace the McCoy crowd with aggressive, publicity-hungry prosecutors who pass up on big time criminals to pursue small fry: "No, not him. He's rich. We'd be tied up in court for years, but what about this guy? College student. Family not wealthy. We can bleed him dry and make him cop anything. Plea bargain the sucker to the slammer, and I get the corner office with a view. Threaten him with 35 years in jail, then offer him 6 months. His family will thank us!'
Just a reminder, anyone who feels Carmen Ortiz overreached here, please consider signing this petition ("A prosecutor who does not understand proportionality and who regularly uses the threat of unjust and overreaching charges to extort plea bargains from defendants regardless of their guilt is a danger to the life and liberty of anyone who might cross her path").
My other UID is three digits.
Let's not blame MIT. MIT is a great place, unfortunately, even at great places are black sheep. And just like any other freaking institution MIT is run by PEOPLE or for that matter black sheep.
So, let's take a closer look at PEOPLE behind the matter who are running that place. First, we had President Hockfield, who was replaced by President Reif. So, it's unfair to blame either of the two presidents. Is it ? The one person who was in fact .orchestrating
and part of all this was Chancellor Eric Grimson.Now a little bit of background music: He and the current President Reif received tons of Media attention for their educational project, edX. With that Project, came fame and money($$$$). Where do u guys think that money came from ? A big guess.
It appeas that Grimson did not want to jeorpadize in any way wat might have affected his i) income stream ii) his reputation on not having been tough enough on that issue.
As a result, when he was given the choice to let things go with a slap in the face (aka Aaron's face), he denied to exercise this privilege and wanted to fully blow up the case. (Only later when he started he is ruining a kiddo completely and that people may think low of him, he tried to pull back, but that was too late.
Aaron father was given half truths by the Chancellor and the Legal Counsel. It is saddening to see that this poor guy had to swallow all of that.
Point here is not EVEN WAS SWARTZ GUILTY OR NOT.
WAT should concern us is why MIT and for that matter the Chancellor Eric Grimson made sure that he would not invoke his privilege to cease the investigation when almost all cards were laid out on the table.
Abelson's analysis will side step this crucial point that is not widely known outside of the trust tree. Abelson's analysis will distract with other half truths OR complete truths that are not relevant. HIS REPORT WILL MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IN THE TOP LAYER OF MIT IS CLEAN. SO, MY QUESTION ... WHY DO WE EVEN CARE ABOUT HIS ANALYSIS WHEN WE ACTUALLY KNOW WAT IT WILL CONTAIN ?
In conclusion, MIT is not guilty, by that we mean MIT's culture, but the legal counsel including the chancellor ARE THE GUILTY ONES AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR EGO's that led actions unfold the way they did.
Let's not blame MIT. MIT is a great place, unfortunately, even at great places are black sheep. And just like any other freaking institution MIT is run by PEOPLE or for that matter black sheep.
So, let's take a closer look at PEOPLE behind the matter who are running that place. First, we had President Hockfield, who was replaced by President Reif. So, it's unfair to blame either of the two presidents. Is it ? The one person who was in fact .orchestrating
and part of all this was Chancellor Eric Grimson.Now a little bit of background music: He and the current President Reif received tons of Media attention for their educational project, edX. With that Project, came fame and money($$$$). Where do u guys think that money came from ? A big guess.
It appeas that Grimson did not want to jeorpadize in any way wat might have affected his i) income stream ii) his reputation on not having been tough enough on that issue.
As a result, when he was given the choice to let things go with a slap in the face (aka Aaron's face), he denied to exercise this privilege and wanted to fully blow up the case. (Only later when he started he is ruining a kiddo completely and that people may think low of him, he tried to pull back, but that was too late.
Aaron father was given half truths by the Chancellor and the Legal Counsel. It is saddening to see that this poor guy had to swallow all of that.
Point here is not EVEN WAS SWARTZ GUILTY OR NOT.
WAT should concern us is why MIT and for that matter the Chancellor Eric Grimson made sure that he would not invoke his privilege to cease the investigation when almost all cards were laid out on the table.
Abelson's analysis will side step this crucial point that is not widely known outside of the trust tree. Abelson's analysis will distract with other half truths OR complete truths that are not relevant. HIS REPORT WILL MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IN THE TOP LAYER OF MIT IS CLEAN. SO, MY QUESTION ... WHY DO WE EVEN CARE ABOUT HIS ANALYSIS WHEN WE ACTUALLY KNOW WAT IT WILL CONTAIN ?
In conclusion, MIT is not guilty, by that we mean MIT's culture, but the legal counsel including the chancellor ARE THE GUILTY ONES AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR EGO's that led actions unfold the way they did.
According to your logic, any street protester should be ready for 2 years of daily waterboarding from the FBI.
CIA. I know I'm being a pedant, but I think blame should be placed on the right party.
Apparently I am anonymous coward. Anyways, In reality, even if he plead not guilty, i.e., refused the plea bargain, the government would only have argued for 7 years. anything involving the number 30 or higher is unrealistic and not believed by anyone with actual knowledge of the situation.